The Labor enquirer., 1887-01-22

the testimony. have deliberately formed
and delivered a opinion that the person
whom they are 70 try ID guilty. or inno-
cent Of the charge alleged against him,
Why 10 II that the most distant relative
Of . party cannot serve upon bis jury
The zeal reason Of the rule is, jthat the
law suspects The relative Of rartiality
suspects his mind 70 bs under Z bias
which will prevent his fairly hearing
and fairly deciding on the testimony
which may be offered to him. The end
70 be obtained is an impartial Jury; to
sepre this end. . man. IL prohibited
nom serving upon Il whose connection
with the party 10 such - TO induce sus-
picion Of partially. A Juror may declare
that, Notwithstanding his prejudice. he
10 determined 10 listen to the evidence.
and TO be governed BY 1t but the law
will not trust him." III II
This law 90 clearly set for b BY Chief
Justice Marshall is DO we'll settled that
Gary cannot be ignorant Of 1t. and to
show how deliberately he violated 1t
I will present q few cases as they appear
In the Official report signed by Judge
Gary and which report is now before
the supreme court. [sec volume ..
pages 2s4 To 2so.1 III
Ryce summoned F. I. Wilson TO serve
on the jury and when examined under
oath in court wilso said he had formed
and expressed an opinion as 10 the guilt
Of some Of the prisoners. Judge Gary
then said to him: "Have you any wish
or desire that any Of these prisoners
should be found guiltv2" Wilson
answered SWELL. I think possibly I
have +; I think I hsve.I He was then
challenged for cause. namely: because
he was. .prejudiced against the prisoners.
Gary refused 70 dismiss him and over.
ruled the challenge and the prisoners
we're forced to use q peyemptory chal-
lengs to get rid Of him. The prisoners
had twenty peremptories each. or 100 in
all, and Gary forced them to use them
all up on such men as Wilson, when the
law plainly requires that the judge shall
dismiss such preiudiced men as Wilson
without waiting for them to be chal,
leaged at all. and especially is 1t his
duty to dismiss such men after they
have been challenged for cause.
To show that Wilson was no excep-
tion to 200 or $40 others summoned by
Ryce and declared by Gary to be Impair
tial and competent jurors, I will cite
few more.
II. W. Smith volume 2. pages 3ll to
3l5) said: II have formed quite de-
cided opinion as to the guilt Of the
prisohers" He was then asked: do
You think YOU could render fair and
impartial verdict ?" His answer was
II don't think could, because my feel
ing is very bitter Prisoners counsel
then objected to Smith for cause. Judge
Gary over-ruled the objection and de-
clared Smith qualified to BIT on the jury.
Thus the prisoners were forced to give
up another peremptory challenge TO get
rid Of Smith. The rascality Of Judge
Gary cannot be denied in these matters
for am quoting from the official record.
Another person summoned for
juror was James II. Walker volume F.
pages 35 to 42) said he formed and still
had an opinion that some Of the prison
ers were guilty and said further: II
admit my opinion might handicap my
judgment" Judge Gary then bantered
Walker for some time for more satis-
factory answer. and failing TO get it
Judge Gary then said {: "well. that Is a
sufficient qualification for juror in this
case. or course. the more a man feels
that he is handicapped, the more he
will be guarded against it." his is
equivalent to saving that "the more
thoroughly a,person believes these men
ought TO be hung before he hears the evi.
dence. the better qualified such person
is to he juror TO try them"
Ifthe official records signed by Gary
himself, rs true record Of the case, did
net contain the exact words no one
would believe a person allowed to oc.
cupv the position Of 4 Judge ever uttered
them. Such so.called Justice would dis
grace FIJI. II remains to be seen
whether the supreme court will sustain
his position.
Several Of the men examined as jurors
declared that If the prisoners were So
cialists, Communists or Anarchists, and
took the stand to testify they would not
believe them the same as they would II
they we're not Socialists. Communists or
Anarchists. Judge Gary ruled that
with such prejudice person was still
qualified as Juror for that case. Gary
refused to allow many who were sum
moned as jurors to answer whether OF
not they had any prejudice against So
cislists, Communists or Anarchists.
In the examination Of Mr.. Shedd (vol-
ume A. pages ss6 to S9s) Judge Gary
said: As q man p:eiudiced against
horse stealing has right to try horse
thief. 30 bv that same right q man pref
udiced against Socialists, Communists ol